The rise of blockchain technology and smart contracts has created a structural dissonance at the heart of commercial law, as the deterministic inflexibility of code meets the flexible equity of centuries of contract law. Perhaps nowhere is this dissonance more pronounced than in the application of force majeure, a concept whose very definition relies on human interpretation, foreseeability, and judicial intervention. This paper undertakes a comparative legal analysis of the role of force majeure in traditional contract law and its potential, or lack thereof, in the algorithmic framework of smart contracts. By applying the landmark decision in the Indian Supreme Court case of Energy Watchdog v CERC (2017), as well as the English and American common law tradition, and emerging regulatory frameworks in the United Kingdom, the European Union, and India, it is submitted that the automation gap, or the inherent inability of code to respond to unforeseen circumstances without external data input, fundamentally challenges the contractual balance which force majeure has traditionally been intended to address. Furthermore, it is submitted that the concept of harmonious construction, traditionally applied in contractual interpretation, has the potential to provide a framework by which flexibility can be integrated in algorithmically enforced contractual obligations. The paper concludes by proposing a Legal-by-Design framework, recommending the inclusion of a requirement in smart contract law that dispute resolution, code governance, and legislative frameworks address code as a form of contractual expression, as opposed to its totality.